Nasal-Swab Testing Misses Patients with Low SARS-CoV-2 Viral Loads

RT-qPCR-based tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection in pooled saliva samples for massive population screening to monitor epidemics

Swab, RT-qPCR tests remain the gold standard of diagnostics of SARS-CoV-2 infections. These tests are costly and have limited throughput. We developed a 3-gene, seminested RT-qPCR test with SYBR green-based detection designed to be oversensitive rather than overspecific for high-throughput diagnostics of populations. This two-tier approach depends on decentralized self-collection of saliva samples, pooling, 1st-tier testing with highly sensitive screening test and subsequent 2nd-tier testing of individual samples from positive pools with the IVD test. The screening test was able to detect five copies of the viral genome in 10 µl of isolated RNA with 50% probability and 18.8 copies with 95% probability and reached Ct values that were highly linearly RNA concentration-dependent. In the side-by-side comparison, the screening test attained slightly better results than the commercially available IVD-certified RT-qPCR diagnostic test DiaPlexQ (100% specificity and 89.8% sensitivity vs. 100% and 73.5%, respectively). Testing of 1475 individual clinical samples pooled in 374 pools of four revealed 0.8% false positive pools and no false negative pools. In weekly prophylactic testing of 113 people within 6 months, a two-tier testing approach enabled the detection of 18 infected individuals, including several asymptomatic individuals, with substantially lower cost than individual RT-PCR testing.

Review of non-invasive detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens in exhaled breath condensate

In 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged to cause high viral infectivity and severe respiratory illness in humans (COVID-19). Worldwide, limited pandemic mitigation strategies, including lack of diagnostic test availability, resulted in COVID-19 overrunning health systems and spreading throughout the global population. Currently, proximal respiratory tract (PRT) specimens such as nasopharyngeal swabs are used to diagnose COVID-19 because of their relative ease of collection and applicability in large scale screening. However, localization of SARS-CoV-2 in the distal respiratory tract (DRT) is associated with more severe infection and symptoms. Exhaled breath condensate (EBC) is a sample matrix comprising aerosolized droplets originating from alveolar lining fluid that are further diluted in the DRT and then PRT and collected via condensation during tidal breathing. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in recent resurgence of interest in EBC collection as an alternative, non-invasive sampling method for the staging and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Herein, we review the potential utility of EBC collection for detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory infections. While much remains to be discovered in fundamental EBC physiology, pathogen-airway interactions, and optimal sampling protocols, EBC, combined with emerging detection methods, presents a promising non-invasive sample matrix for detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Evaluation of Swab-Seq as a scalable, sensitive assay for community surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 infection

The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and subsequent demand for viral testing has led to issues in scaling diagnostic lab efforts and in securing basic supplies for collection and processing of samples. This has motivated efforts by the scientific community to establish improved protocols that are more scalable, less resource intensive, and less expensive. One such developmental effort has resulted in an assay called "Swab-Seq", so named because it was originally developed to work with dry nasal swab samples. The existing gold standard test consists of RNA extracted from a nasopharyngeal (NP) swab that is subjected to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Swab-Seq adapts this method to a next-generation sequencing readout. By pairing this modification with extraction-free sampling techniques, Swab-Seq achieves high scalability, low cost per sample, and a reasonable turnaround time. We evaluated the effectiveness of this assay in a community surveillance setting by testing samples collected from both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals using the traditional NP swab. In addition, we evaluated extraction-free sampling techniques (both saliva and saline mouth gargle samples). We found the assay to be as clinically sensitive as the qRT-PCR assay, adaptable to multiple sample types, and able to easily accommodate hundreds of samples at a time. We thus provide independent validation of Swab-Seq and extend its utility regarding sample type and sample stability. Assays of this type greatly expand the possibility of routine, noninvasive, repeated testing of asymptomatic individuals suitable for current and potential future needs.

Nanobioengineering: A promising approach for early detection of COVID-19

Unique pneumonia due to an unknown source emerged in December 2019 in the city of Wuhan, China. Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared this condition as a new coronavirus disease-19 also known as COVID-19 on February 11, 2020, which on March 13, 2020 was declared as a pandemic. The virus that causes COVID-19 was found to have a similar genome (80% similarity) with the previously known acute respiratory syndrome also known as SARS-CoV. The novel virus was later named Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). SARS-CoV-2 falls in the family of Coronaviridae which is further divided into Nidovirales and another subfamily called Orthocoronavirinae. The four generations of the coronaviruses belongs to the Orthocoronavirinae family that consists of alpha, beta, gamma and delta coronavirus which are denoted as α-CoV, β-CoV, γ-CoV, δ-CoV respectively. The α-CoV and β-CoVs are mainly known to infect mammals whereas γ-CoV and δ-CoV are generally found in birds. The β-CoVs also comprise of SARS-CoV and also include another virus that was found in the Middle East called the Middle East respiratory syndrome virus (MERS-CoV) and the cause of current pandemic SARS-CoV-2. These viruses initially cause the development of pneumonia in the patients and further development of a severe case of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other related symptoms that can be fatal leading to death.

Nasopharyngeal Swabs vs. Nasal Aspirates for Respiratory Virus Detection: A Systematic Review

Nasal pathogen detection sensitivities can be as low as 70% despite advances in molecular diagnostics. This may be linked to the choice of sampling method. A diagnostic test accuracy review for sensitivity was undertaken to compare sensitivity of swabbing to the nasopharynx and extracting nasal aspirates, using the PRISMA protocol, Cochrane rapid review methodology, and QUADAS-2 risk of bias tools, with meta-analysis of included studies. Sensitivities were calculated by a consensus standard of positivity by either method as the ‘gold standard.’ Insufficient sampling methodology, cross sectional study designs, and studies pooling samples across anatomical sites were excluded. Of 13 subsequently eligible studies, 8 had ‘high’ risk of bias, and 5 had ‘high’ applicability concerns. There were no statistical differences in overall sensitivities between collection methods for eight different viruses, and this did not differ with use of PCR, immunofluorescence, or culture. In one study alone, Influenza H1N1(2009) favored nasopharyngeal swabs, with aspirates having 93.3% of the sensitivity of swabs (p > 0.001). Similarly equivocal sensitivities were noted in reports detecting bacteria. The chain of sampling, from anatomical site to laboratory results, features different potential foci along which sensitivity may be lost. A fair body of evidence exists that use of a different sampling method will not yield more respiratory pathogens.

Cooperation under Pressure: Lessons from the COVID-19 Swab Crisis

The early months of the COVID-19 pandemic were marked by a desperate need for nasopharyngeal swabs to test for SARS-CoV-2, with demand far outstripping supply. April marked the anniversary of an unprecedented nationwide multibusiness/multihospital partnership that successfully met this need, a fitting occasion to review lessons learned. Here, I briefly recount the key events, constraints, and thought processes surrounding the effort in order to better inform responses to future crises. Overall, the experience was a strong validation of Joy’s Law and illustrated the utility of recognizing temptations to avoid, in order to reap the rewards of cooperation. I conclude by summarizing lessons learned.

Saliva is Comparable to Nasopharyngeal Swabs for Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2

The continued need for molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the potential for self-collected saliva as an alternative to nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs for sample acquisition led us to compare saliva to NP swabs in an outpatient setting without restrictions to avoid food, drink, smoking, or tooth-brushing. A total of 385 pairs of NP and saliva specimens were obtained, the majority from individuals presenting for initial evaluation, and were tested on two high-sensitivity reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) platforms, the Abbott m2000 and Abbott Alinity m (both with limits of detection [LoD] of 100 copies of viral RNA/ml). Concordance between saliva and NP swabs was excellent overall (Cohen's κ = 0.93) for both initial and follow-up testing, for both platforms, and for specimens treated with guanidinium transport medium as preservative as well as for untreated saliva (κ = 0.88 to 0.95). Viral loads were on average 16× higher in NP specimens than saliva specimens, suggesting that only the relatively small fraction of outpatients (∼8% in this study) who present with very low viral loads (<1,600 copies/ml from NP swabs) would be missed by testing saliva instead of NP swabs when using sensitive testing platforms. Special attention was necessary to ensure leak-resistant specimen collection and transport. The advantages of self-collection of saliva, without behavioral restrictions, will likely outweigh a minor potential decrease in clinical sensitivity in individuals less likely to pose an infectious risk to others for many real-world scenarios, especially for initial testing. IMPORTANCE In general, the most accurate COVID-19 testing is hands-on and uncomfortable, requiring trained staff and a "brain-tickling" nasopharyngeal swab. Saliva would be much easier on both fronts, since patients could collect it themselves, and it is after all just spit. However, despite much interest, it remains unclear how well saliva performs in real-world settings when just using it in place of an NP swab without elaborate or cumbersome restrictions about not eating/drinking before testing, etc. Also, almost all studies of COVID-19 testing, whether of NP swabs, saliva, or otherwise, have been restricted to reporting results in the abstruse units of "CT values," which only mean something in the context of a specific assay and testing platform. Here, we compared saliva versus NP swabs in a real-world setting without restriction and report all results in natural units-the amount of virus being shed-showing that saliva is essentially just as good as NP swabs.

Diagnostic performance of different sampling approaches for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparative performance of different clinical sampling methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR among populations with suspected infection remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of different clinical specimen collection methods.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and Research Square from Jan 1, 2000, to Nov 16, 2020. We included original clinical studies that examined the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs and any additional respiratory specimens for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals presenting in ambulatory care. Studies without data on paired samples, or those that only examined different samples from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases were not useful for examining diagnostic performance of a test and were excluded. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, was examined using random effects models and double arcsine transformation.

FINDINGS

Of the 5577 studies identified in our search, 23 studies including 7973 participants with 16 762 respiratory samples were included. Respiratory specimens examined in these studies included 7973 nasopharyngeal swabs, 1622 nasal swabs, 6110 saliva samples, 338 throat swabs, and 719 pooled nasal and throat swabs. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the gold standard, pooled nasal and throat swabs gave the highest sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 93-100), whereas lower sensitivities were achieved by saliva (85%, 75-93) and nasal swabs (86%, 77-93) and a much lower sensitivity by throat swabs (68%, 35-94). A comparably high positive predictive value was obtained by pooled nasal and throat (97%, 90-100) and nasal swabs (96%, 87-100) and a slightly lower positive predictive value by saliva (93%, 88-97). Throat swabs have the lowest positive predictive value of 75% (95% CI 45-96). Comparably high specificities (range 97-99%) and negative predictive value (range 95-99%) were observed among different clinical specimens. Comparison between health-care-worker collection and self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs showed comparable diagnostic performance. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of pooled nasal and throat swabs and throat swabs, whereas moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I² ≥30%) was observed in studies on saliva and nasal swabs.

INTERPRETATION

Our review suggests that, compared with the gold standard of nasopharyngeal swabs, pooled nasal and throat swabs offered the best diagnostic performance of the alternative sampling approaches for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory care. Saliva and nasal swabs gave comparable and very good diagnostic performance and are clinically acceptable alternative specimen collection methods. Throat swabs gave a much lower sensitivity and positive predictive value and should not be recommended. Self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs was not associated with any significant impairment of diagnostic accuracy. Our results also provide a useful reference framework for the proper interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 testing results using different clinical specimens.

FUNDING

Hong Kong Research Grants Council.

Performance of Saliva, Oropharyngeal Swabs, and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the highest-yield sample for diagnostic testing for respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The need to increase capacity for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a variety of settings, combined with shortages of sample collection supplies, have motivated a search for alternative sample types with high sensitivity. We systematically reviewed the literature to understand the performance of alternative sample types compared to NP swabs. We systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv (last retrieval 1 October 2020) for comparative studies of alternative specimen types (saliva, oropharyngeal [OP], and nasal [NS] swabs) versus NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). A logistic-normal random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate % positive alternative-specimen, % positive NP, and % dual positives overall and in subgroups. The QUADAS 2 tool was used to assess bias. From 1,253 unique citations, we identified 25 saliva, 11 NS, 6 OP, and 4 OP/NS studies meeting inclusion criteria. Three specimen types captured lower % positives (NS [82%, 95% CI: 73 to 90%], OP [84%, 95% CI: 57 to 100%], and saliva [88%, 95% CI: 81 to 93%]) than NP swabs, while combined OP/NS matched NP performance (97%, 95% CI: 90 to 100%). Absence of RNA extraction (saliva) and utilization of a more sensitive NAAT (NS) substantially decreased alternative-specimen yield of positive samples. NP swabs remain the gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, although alternative specimens are promising. Much remains unknown about the impact of variations in specimen collection, processing protocols, and population (pediatric versus adult, late versus early in disease course), such that head-to head studies of sampling strategies are urgently needed.

Performance of Saliva, Oropharyngeal Swabs, and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the highest-yield sample for diagnostic testing for respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The need to increase capacity for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a variety of settings, combined with shortages of sample collection supplies, have motivated a search for alternative sample types with high sensitivity. We systematically reviewed the literature to understand the performance of alternative sample types compared to NP swabs. We systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv (last retrieval 1 October 2020) for comparative studies of alternative specimen types (saliva, oropharyngeal [OP], and nasal [NS] swabs) versus NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). A logistic-normal random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate % positive alternative-specimen, % positive NP, and % dual positives overall and in subgroups. The QUADAS 2 tool was used to assess bias. From 1,253 unique citations, we identified 25 saliva, 11 NS, 6 OP, and 4 OP/NS studies meeting inclusion criteria. Three specimen types captured lower % positives (NS [82%, 95% CI: 73 to 90%], OP [84%, 95% CI: 57 to 100%], and saliva [88%, 95% CI: 81 to 93%]) than NP swabs, while combined OP/NS matched NP performance (97%, 95% CI: 90 to 100%). Absence of RNA extraction (saliva) and utilization of a more sensitive NAAT (NS) substantially decreased alternative-specimen yield of positive samples. NP swabs remain the gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, although alternative specimens are promising. Much remains unknown about the impact of variations in specimen collection, processing protocols, and population (pediatric versus adult, late versus early in disease course), such that head-to head studies of sampling strategies are urgently needed.

Considerations for diagnostic COVID-19 tests

During the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, design, development, validation, verification and implementation of diagnostic tests were actively addressed by a large number of diagnostic test manufacturers. Hundreds of molecular tests and immunoassays were rapidly developed, albeit many still await clinical validation and formal approval. In this Review, we summarize the crucial role of diagnostic tests during the first global wave of COVID-19. We explore the technical and implementation problems encountered during this early phase in the pandemic, and try to define future directions for the progressive and better use of (syndromic) diagnostics during a possible resurgence of COVID-19 in future global waves or regional outbreaks. Continuous global improvement in diagnostic test preparedness is essential for more rapid detection of patients, possibly at the point of care, and for optimized prevention and treatment, in both industrialized countries and low-resource settings.

Digital PCR for high sensitivity viral detection in false-negative SARS-CoV-2 patients

Patients requiring diagnostic testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are routinely assessed by reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) amplification of Sars-CoV-2 virus RNA extracted from oro/nasopharyngeal swabs. Despite the good specificity of the assays certified for SARS-CoV-2 molecular detection, and a theoretical sensitivity of few viral gene copies per reaction, a relatively high rate of false negatives continues to be reported. This is an important challenge in the management of patients on hospital admission and for correct monitoring of the infectivity after the acute phase. In the present report, we show that the use of digital PCR, a high sensitivity method to detect low amplicon numbers, allowed us to correctly detecting infection in swab material in a significant number of false negatives. We show that the implementation of digital PCR methods in the diagnostic assessment of COVID-19 could resolve, at least in part, this timely issue.

SARS-CoV-2 infection: diagnostic testing results occasionally require special attention

The case refers to a 51-year-old symptomatic man with a new SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive nasopharyngeal swab after two negative ones and the lack of significant development of antibody response measured by different diagnostic serological test. Our case underlines that a discrepancy between clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infection and results from diagnostic tests may exist. This concept is rapidly emerging and supports the need for a deep knowledge of available and “in development” tests for a correct interpretation of their findings.

The sensitivity of respiratory tract specimens for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: A protocol for a living systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Highly sensitive, non-invasive, and easily accessible diagnostics for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are essential for the control of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. There is a clear need to establish a gold standard diagnostic for SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans using respiratory tract specimens.

Methods

Searches will be conducted in the bibliographic databases Medline, Embase, bioRxiv, medRxiv, F1000, ChemRxiv, PeerJ Preprints, Preprints.org, Beilstein Archive, and Research Square. Relevant government documents and grey literature will be sought on the FDA's Emergency Use Authorizations website, the ECDC's website, and the website of the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics. Finally, papers categorized as diagnosis papers by the EPPI Centre's COVID-19 living systematic map will be added to our screening process; those papers are tagged with the diagnosis topic based on human review, rather than database searches, and thus this set of papers might include ones that have not been captured by our search strategy.